United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a prisoner, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed
plaintiff’s financial information, the Court assesses a
partial initial filing fee of $1.80, which is twenty percent
of his average monthly deposit. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b). Additionally, the Court will dismiss several of the
defendants from this action.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a
complaint must plead more than “legal
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is]
a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679.
is incarcerated at the Southeast Correctional Center
(“SECC”). Plaintiff alleges that on September 11,
2014, he covered the security camera in his cell with wet
toilet paper so that he could have privacy while using the
restroom. Afterward, he was given a conduct violation for
destruction of property. Plaintiff denies that any damage was
done to the camera.
Bartlett found plaintiff guilty of the charge, but he did not
order plaintiff to pay restitution. Defendant Price, the
Acting Functional Unit Manager, reviewed the decision and
modified it so that plaintiff was required to pay $317.00 in
restitution for damage to the camera. It is unclear whether
plaintiff was given notice or a hearing to object to the
Hanesbrink, Wallace, and Lombardi denied plaintiff’s
grievances on the matter.
removal of funds from a prisoner’s account without due
process might state a claim for relief under § 1983.
See Montanez v. Boyd, 344 Fed.Appx. 833, 835 (3rd
Cir. 2009). As a result, the Court will order the Clerk to
serve process on defendant Price.
under § 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the alleged deprivation of rights.”
Madewell v. Roberts, 909 F.2d 1203, 1208 (8th Cir.
1990); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676
(2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to
Bivens and § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead
that each Government-official defendant, through the
official’s own individual actions, has violated the
Constitution.”). Plaintiff has not pled facts showing
that defendant Bartlett intended for plaintiff to be fined.
As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim against
persons who cause or participate in the [constitutional]
violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an
administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609
(7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Therefore, the complaint
does not state a plausible claim against defendants
Hanesbrink, Wallace, or Lombardi.
complaint fails to state a claim against the Missouri
Department of Corrections or SECC because they are not
subject to suit under § 1983. E.g., Barket, Levy
& Fine, Inc. v. St. Louis Thermal Energy Corp., 948
F.2d 1084, 1086 (8th Cir. 1991) (agency exercising state
power is not “person” subject to § 1983
suit). As a result, the complaint is dismissed as to these
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed